Dan Dorn seeks to deprive paralyzed woman of visitation with her kids

[Melly53]

I've been following this case since last year through the LA Times. IMO, Dan is a shallow and selfish person. This guy's true character has come through loud and clear.

Six page article from 2010.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/11/local/la-me-abbie11-2010apr11

Slideshow
http://www.latimes.com/la-me-abbie-pictures,0,1656556.photogallery

From page 6 of the article:

"In court documents filed Thursday, Dan charges that the Cohens are trying "to financially destroy the children's sole means of support" by pushing costly litigation and attempting "to force visitation that the children are too young to understand and may cause more psychological long-term harm than good."

Sole means of support huh??? So he does not even work to support his own children? Who has supported them for the last 5 years? Did he have a lawsuit of his own in regards to the damage his wife suffered from which he received money? Would be interesting to know the answers.

 

[froggierintexas]

I just wonder what he is going to tell the children one day when they read about this. What if one of them asks why he never encouraged them to know about their mother from the get go? And what if they ask why he expected her to support them when he is able bodied and she is not. He needs to think long term.

And what about when he is old and needs care? Is he teaching them once you need care that your loved ones are to turn their back, take the money they can get and move on? That one might bite him in the patooty.

Just my own thoughts...

 

[southcitymom]

I'm not contradicting you, CC, and I readily acknowledge that this is your area of expertise. But I have known a few 2-year-olds in my life and I wouldn't say "inner peace and happiness" was their most notable quality.

Responding to your previous post, I wonder how much of this is about interaction with the maternal grandparents. I don't know what South Carolina's law (or California's) is on that subject, but I do think the children would benefit from knowing their mother's parents.

And when they reach an age where they can make the decision, they might benefit from visiting their mother. But I'd hate to see annual (semiannual, whatever) trips to sit with mother while she doesn't respond become a hateful chore for these children. That might well prevent the benefits you describe from aiding a disabled person voluntarily, something they might discover for themselves later in life.

Nova, my first thought after reading this article was that this may actually be more about the grandparents wanting visitation. I support that. I cannot tell if the mother is aware enough to really have any sort of responsive relationship with her children. That said, you'd think the father and grandparents could work together towards a compromise that is good for everyone.

 

[southcitymom]

From page 6 of the article:

"In court documents filed Thursday, Dan charges that the Cohens are trying "to financially destroy the children's sole means of support" by pushing costly litigation and attempting "to force visitation that the children are too young to understand and may cause more psychological long-term harm than good."

Sole means of support huh??? So he does not even work to support his own children? Who has supported them for the last 5 years? Did he have a lawsuit of his own in regards to the damage his wife suffered from which he received money? Would be interesting to know the answers.

If she got $8 million, I am SURE the husband got something. Any personal injury attorney would have included a charge for his loss of consortium because the negligence that injured his wife so gravely also injured him.

I agree that the children are too young to understand any of this, but I can't see how working some visitation in would harm them.

 

[burbqueen]

I can truly see both sides of the argument, but I put myself in the husbands position. I love my DH with all my heart. He has numerous issues at 24 and probably wont make another 5 years. He has congestive heart failure. It's genetic. If he was paralyzed or in a coma or something I owe it to him to be a supportive wife. I couldnt see myself divorcing him and just leaving him there in a hospital. I would be visiting as often as I can and make sure my son knew this was his father. I owe it to him and his family not to just abandon my husband when things get rough.

 

[CCmakes3]

If it were just a question of the kids being forced to sit in an empty room and entertain their unresponsive mother, I would understand his point of view. But it sounds like the grandparents would be there to act as buffers or facilitators and structure the experience into something meaningful for everyone. Plus, the mother's schedule of traditional and alternative therapies might be interesting and educational for the children. I have worked in both pediatrics and brain injury rehab and have frequently had the challenge of incorporating a patient's children or siblings into their therapy. It has been almost universally a positive experience with any child over the age of 3 or so. It is admittedly more challenging with very young children but definitely possible if conscientious care-givers are involved, and it sounds like Abbie's parents would fall into that category.

 

[Melanie]

I don't know...a yearly vacation to see the grandparents in Myrtle Beach doesn't sound too horrible! It doesn't sound as if they plan to leave the kids unattended with her. I would think it would be more traumatizing to tell them they need to just forget about her because she is disabled. Chances are they will one day find out that it was their birth that caused her disability and regret not having been able to spend time with her. As someone who works with disabled individuals, I can tell you that exposing my children to interactions with these people has greatly enriched their lives. They have become patient, compassionate indivduals whom others congratulate me upon frequently.

I agree - it think it would be most positive for the children to see their mother. It appears the December visit went well, and don't see why a visit every 6 months would be harmful (more if the children want it).

She is still their mother and the children have the right to see her - regardless of what the dad says. I would hate to insinuate that the father is trying to get the children to forget their mother -- but that's what it sounds like to me.

MOO

Mel

 

[Hopeful One]

This really is a shame. And nice guy, divorcing her because she's paralyzed. I guess he was kidding when he said for better or for worse, huh?

 

[Nova]

I believe they're 5 now. Quite a difference, in my opinion.

I promise you I am well aware of the difference between 2 and 5. I was responding to a post that said the kids should have been visiting the mother when they were younger, so they could have bonded. I'm still skeptical of how much bonding a 2 or 3-year-old can do with a virtually unresponsive parent.

But 5 is certainly different from 2, and 10 from 5, etc.

ETA that though I can't envision it, CC has actually worked with extremely disabled patients and their children as young as 2 or 3. She says it's possible to make it work and I believe her. Instead of "skeptical", I should have said I just don't have the experience to imagine it.

 

[ziggy]

Here's the deal as was discussed on our local KGO radio program...HE WANTS TO TERMINATE HER PARENTAL RIGHTS. Ok, that is a little different than, "I don't want to take the kids to visit because it may traumatize them." To me this describes a less than honorable motive.

First, kids can be told about their mom and what to expect - even at 5. They don't really "know" her so seeing her in that state won't be a shock. Those of us who are shocked by such meetings are usually so because the person is so different than what we knew or were expecting.

Second - this is who they are, meaning, this is their hardship to bear. Everyone has some trauma in their lifetime - the triplets don't have a real mommy. But seeing her and knowing her even in the state she is in, I think, will help shape the compassion they will have for others who are disabled.

Last, she is in this state due to no fault of her own - she is in this state because she wanted to have them. The doctors screwed up! They need to have some memories of their mother in order to feel like she was properly honored for her dedication to carrying them and her sincere wish to have and love them. Since the dad divorced her, they may grow up pissed off as He77 at him for not at least giving them and the chance to feel like they honored her.

This whole thing just reeks of a man of very low moral character making decisions that may very well NOT be in the best interest of his children.

They will grow a bit older and Google her - they will know. There's a chance she could die and he would have never let them see her. How would they feel knowing they never had a chance to at least be in the presence of her spirit when her body was still alive?

This one runs me hot.

 

[Nova]

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-abbie-dorn-custody-battle,0,1358338.story?page=2&track=rss

"Dorn, who is seeking child support from Abbie's estate, stated in court documents that he has not told the children what happened to their mother because they are too young to understand. He says he will consider taking the children to see Abbie when they are older -- if he receives medical evidence that she will be able to communicate with them."

Now, that's not right to me, that he won't take them to see her and indicates that he might never do so if he doesn't think she can communicate with them, but he does want child support money from her estate!!! IMO he shouldn't be able to have it both ways. If visiting her presented a danger to the children that would be one thing, but it doesn't sound like it does. (She received a malpractice settlement that her parents manage.)

This will probably seem horribly unfair, but where is the "fair" in anything about this case?

But I don't think child support should be tied to visitation requirements. I think each should be decided separately based on what is best for the children. (In fairness to the father, I don't know what sacrifices he is making to raise 3 children without a spouse.)

If the children need support (and it is available--I also don't know the details of the mother's financial situation), they should have it.

If they want to visit their mother, it should be made possible. If they do not want to visit her, I don't think I'd force them to do so at 5.

 

[Nova]

Here's the deal as was discussed on our local KGO radio program...HE WANTS TO TERMINATE HER PARENTAL RIGHTS. Ok, that is a little different than, "I don't want to take the kids to visit because it may traumatize them." To me this describes a less than honorable motive.

First, kids can be told about their mom and what to expect - even at 5. They don't really "know" her so seeing her in that state won't be a shock. Those of us who are shocked by such meetings are usually so because the person is so different than what we knew or were expecting.

Second - this is who they are, meaning, this is their hardship to bear. Everyone has some trauma in their lifetime - the triplets don't have a real mommy. But seeing her and knowing her even in the state she is in, I think, will help shape the compassion they will have for others who are disabled.

Last, she is in this state due to no fault of her own - she is in this state because she wanted to have them. The doctors screwed up! They need to have some memories of their mother in order to feel like she was properly honored for her dedication to carrying them and her sincere wish to have and love them. Since the dad divorced her, they may grow up pissed off as He77 at him for not at least giving them and the chance to feel like they honored her.

This whole thing just reeks of a man of very low moral character making decisions that may very well NOT be in the best interest of his children.

They will grow a bit older and Google her - they will know. There's a chance she could die and he would have never let them see her. How would they feel knowing they never had a chance to at least be in the presence of her spirit when her body was still alive?

This one runs me hot.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, ziggy, I understand that "terminating parental rights" is a harsh phrase, but that may be the only legal way the father can prevent visits he believes to be harmful to the children.

As a rule, I believe in telling children as much truth as they can understand without unnecessarily alarming them. And it's the alarm part of that equation that is difficult to calculate in this case.

Obviously, the children now have seen their mother and, at that point, knew she existed. I'm not an expert on early child development, so I don't know how much info 5-year-olds retain without reinforcement. But maybe the father thinks it unkind to keep reminding children that age that they have a mother, when they can obviously see they DON'T "have a mother" in the sense that most of their friends do.

 

[turbosleuthing]

I don't understand why these kids haven't seen their mother prior to this? One visit at four years old?!

He should've gone out of his way to make sure those kids saw their mother and formed a bond with her, regardless of her condition.

IMO he has deprived them and deserves to be stripped of his custody.

:clap:
That is exactly what needs to happen & shame on him!!!

 

[yosande]

I fully expected to agree with you, CC, but after reading the article I'm not sure. The doctor couldn't get the mother to blink yes and no "reliably." So the grandparents claim that the mother has a right "to hold her children" is nonsense; the mother isn't able to hold anyone. ("Holding" isn't the underlying right being claimed, of course, visitation is. I just thought the use of language was disingenuous, whether the grandparents or the reporter are to blame.)

But the grandparents are demanding that the father drag three 5-year-olds across the country to spend time with a mother who may or may not even blink in response to them. Somehow I think that's a lot to ask of children that young.

I respectfully disagree. If a person has not had experience with cognitively disabled people, they can't understand that even if a tbi person can't respond with their eyes in a consistant and/or timely manner, does not mean no one's home.

I have a 36 year old son, who had a tbi (traumatic brain injury) at 23 years old.
I have taken care of him since the onset of his injury.
He smiles, he hugs, he reaches out for me. He scowls right before he coughs, and urinates.

His hearing is hypersensitive.
His ability to see is slowed, so he watches slow moving shows, and turns away from movies that have quick movement, and are also loud.
He has a trach, so I don't think he has the ability to smell, since he breathes through his trach.
His is unable to swallow consistently, which is the reason for the trach, but he is given tastes of food, which he very much enjoys.
His ability to respond to touch is very good, but unless you know him, and spend time with him, you won't recognize it.

It is very important, I do mean very important for people with a tbi to get as much positive reenforcement as possible.
My son loves face to face interaction, and he needs to be touched on his face.

As for the children of this woman. Children learn from their parents and guardians how to respond to people who are disabled. Babies have no fear of my son, however, if the parents are uncomfortable, the children learn to be the same. I have watched as my son's nieces and nephews have been born and growing that it has been the same, also with young cousins.

Babies are curious because they expect smiles, and funny faces. If they don't get one, they think about it, and try to get him to smile. If/when they don't get a response, they will simply hug him, and talk to him. They naturally accept him. However, if their parents ignore him, which is often the case, the children learn over time to do the same, and, even to avoid him. It's very sad actually, but my son watches them play, and seems content with that, most of the time.

Her children are being deprived the opportunity to know and accept their mom in whatever condition she is in. She can't help it. Love increases cognitivity though.

This mom should NOT be deprived of seeing, hugging, and watching her children grow. It is nothing short of discrimination. Nothing good can come from keeping them apart.
If distance is an issue, the family members should resolve it, for the sake of the children, and the mom.
moo

ETA; My son also gives a great big sigh, to say "hi" or if he wants your attention.

 

[Nova]

Thank you, yosande. I am certainly learning a lot in this thread!

 

[yosande]

Totally agree about the grandparents. (I admit I'm biased, being a grandparent myself, but also having preferred my grandparents to my parents.)

I realize we only have a brief news account and so I'm speculating here: but I wonder if the central issue isn't the way the husband conceptualizes his ex-wife v. the way her parents do. The husband seems to have decided his ex is in a perpetually vegetative state; perhaps he is inclined to do so since it justifies his divorcing the mother of his children and moving away. The parents, quite understandably since they continue to care for their daughter, see her as a cognizant human being; and maybe they need to do that in order to face the daily effort to care for her.

In each case, the party is fighting for a specific conceptualization of the mother. The kids are caught in the middle. I'm not sure a court can make the kids think of their mother one way or another. I agree with CC that the children may have much to gain from thinking of their mother as a person with special needs but also much to give; however, I fear a court order will leave them thinking of "Mom" as the "zombie" they have to visit twice a year. Sorry to be blunt, but I'm trying to think of it from the view of a child.

Yeah, close relationships can be made when people see each other twice a year, NOT.
She should be able to see her children more often. Where was her divorce attorney when visitation rules were set.
She should have the same rights as any other noncustodial parent, which is far more than twice a year.
The grandparents can make it a good experience, and if any of the kids don't want to go, they shouldn't be made to, however, the father has probably put images in their minds that a therapist, and time with their mom and grandparetns will need to correct. moo

 

[yosande]

Yeah, close relationships can be made when people see each other twice a year, NOT.
She should be able to see her children more often. Where was her divorce attorney when visitation rules were set.
She should have the same rights as any other noncustodial parent, which is far more than twice a year.
The grandparents can make it a good experience, and if any of the kids don't want to go, they shouldn't be made to, however, the father has probably put images in their minds that a therapist, and time with their mom and grandparetns will need to correct. moo

Sorry to use my own quote.

I just now watched the video of the news which had pics of the kids with the mom.
It is quite apparent to me that the mother has facial expressions. She was sad when hugging the little girl. She was smiling when being kissed by her mom, and her child.

She doesn't appear to have a trach, so she must be able to swallow, otherwise she would drown on her own saliva.
Therefore, she could probably relearn to eat, though drs. do not recommend doing so.
The dialation of her eyes appears to be normal.
There are meds that can be given to relax her muscles so they don't contract, and there is a machine called a quadriciser, which is a passive exercise machine which can increase her ability to move, and cause her arms and legs to be more flexible. It also increases their hope, so they smile more.

A hardy pat on the back to her parents who care for her. I do the same for mine. It isn't easy, but they are certainly worthy of it. I consider it a honor to care for my son.
I would give anything though to have him well.
I accept him as he is, but I miss his laugh. He has said mom, once, and laughed once, when he saw me getting tripped up in a machine cord. It was a wonderful day.

ok, enough.

 

[peeples]

((HUGS)) yosasnde.... just (((HUGS)))

 

[zadari]

i think that father should be ordered to let those kids see the mother everyday .. he should move to where she is .. if they are with her everyday mabey she will come back .. miracles do happen ..but i am wondering why her parents are managing the estate .. the malpractice one .. if they are married shouldnt it have gone to the husband ? he should be hopeing she would come back not living 3 states away .. i am sad for them all

 

[Nova]

i think that father should be ordered to let those kids see the mother everyday .. he should move to where she is .. if they are with her everyday mabey she will come back .. miracles do happen ..but i am wondering why her parents are managing the estate .. the malpractice one .. if they are married shouldnt it have gone to the husband ? he should be hopeing she would come back not living 3 states away .. i am sad for them all

I would assume the father gave up control of the mother's estate when he divorced her. I also assume control of it automatically reverted to her custodial kin, her parents.

I've been discussing the case based on the assumption that the father and grandparents are all acting "in good faith," that is, with the best wishes of the children (in both cases) and the mother (in the grandparents' case) in mind. Or at least "in good faith" to the best ability of each.

I really hope this isn't about money, but I wonder why the father didn't arrange for child support at the time of the divorce.

***

I have no words to express my admiration of people like the grandparents and yosande, who devote their lives to caring for people who need so much help. I know yosande says it is an honor and I believe her. But a lesser person might think otherwise.